A simple start?

_{Mark

October 20, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In case we did not know, New Scientist confirms that at the base of the (postulated) tree of life is an extremely complex life form, much like a modern cell.

“There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

It is easy (or not) to imagine something as simple as that arising by natural processes.

here

Comments

Mr BA^77, I don't think Trifonov 1989 has quite the meaning you think it does. This came up previously in a discussion with Mr Cordova, who is also much taken with Dr Sanford's book. You can arrive at "12 codes" (one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel - THAT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE!!1!) by multiplying 2 strands by 2 directions by 3 reading frames. As such, it is a statement of possibility, not actuality. Think about it. If each strand was read in every reading frame, we wouldn't have diseases caused by reading frame errors. Nylonase would have always existed.Nakashima_{October 26, 2009
October
10
Oct
26
26
2009
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

Mr Vjtorley, Nor will I dis Google, if it searched this thread within an hour! I read both of the articles you referenced, thank you. DNA (and all of the epigenetic machinery mentioned in those articles) is truly amazing. But then, so is the code to forecast the weather! We aren't any closer to comparing the two in any meaningful way. We also have to be careful to maintain some continuity in the discussion. Mr BA^77, in quoting Abel and Trevors, referred to a mycoplasmic bacterium as surpassing the technical brilliance of any human programming. Follow-up responses have made reference to the ENCODE project and discoveries about th ecomplexity of the mammalian (human/mouse) genetic system. These are quite different. An interesting counter example to the arguments about the importance of noncoding RNA is the creation of mice with long stretches of 'junk DNA' knocked out of their genome.Nakashima_{October 26, 2009
October
10
Oct
26
26
2009
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Stephen, Frankly, I'm not at peace with the abortion issue. I doubt that makes me the exception either.Dave Wisker_{October 26, 2009
October
10
Oct
26
26
2009
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler, Why couldn’t I care less about what you care about? What is so wrong with that? Why shouldn’t I just take what I want if I am big, strong, smart, well-armed enough to just take it? If you recall, I said I choose to live in a society where the majority feel pretty much the same way about those issues. Human behavioral variation being what it is, there will be some who don't think that way. But the only way to keep the level of human misery at a minimum within such a society is to codify those agreed-upon issues into a justice system.Dave Wisker_{October 26, 2009
October
10
Oct
26
26
2009
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

---Dave Wisker: "I base my ethical views on my own internal compass, which derives its direction from my sense of empathy. I don’t want to see others suffer because I don’t like suffering myself." So, I gather that you would defend to the death the life of the unborn infant in the womb. Ironically, very few who derive their morality from their "sense of empathy" extend that sentiment to the most helpless and vulnerable among us. Am I to understand that you are the exception?StephenB_{October 26, 2009
October
10
Oct
26
26
2009
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

"I couldn’t care less, as long as the majority of the people try to be most excellent to each other, as The Golden Rule states." Why couldn't I care less about what you care about? What is so wrong with that? Why shouldn't I just take what I want if I am big, strong, smart, well-armed enough to just take it? Why would I care if you don't like that? I'm just curious as to what is your ultimate basis for not only "being excellent" (hey Dude, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!!) but justifying it. You say you have an impulse to keep human misery to a minimum. Why? And what if I have the opposite impulse? Who is right and how do we arbitrate that? And what difference does it make anyway in the blink of cosmic time that we are alive?? Really.tgpeeler_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

born, I base my ethical views on my own internal compass, which derives its direction from my sense of empathy. I don’t want to see others suffer because I don’t like suffering myself . Consequently, I prefer to live in a society where the overall level of human misery is kept to a minimum, which to me means choosing to live in a society where the majority consists of like-minded people over issues such as murder, theft, basic civility, etc. Of course, not everyone derives their moral compass the same way. Some derive it internally, as I do, while others base their morality on direction from a god or gods. I couldn’t care less, as long as the majority of the people try to be most excellent to each other, as The Golden Rule states.Dave Wisker_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Seversky @171 "This is where I have a problem with a certain form of belief when it holds we are “aimless, pointless, amoral, ultimately worthless” Says who?" Um, naturalism/materialism and thus anyone who is a proponent of those "isms." I wasn't aware that I was being controversial here. I hate to quote Dawkins because some young or untrained mind may think he's on to something instead of on something but it's a risk I must take here... From River Out of Eden, p. 132. "… Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Aside from the fact that his reasoning skills are barely detectable, he does grasp the point that if one is a naturalist/materialist (both demonstrably false, I'd love to have that out with you) then there is no point and if there is no point, why then, there is no point. "Why is it only God who gets decide what is our purpose or our worth or what is moral? What is to prevent us from working these things out for ourselves?" This sounds like you are pissed off at God for some reason and therefore have decided to stamp your foot in anger and deny Him. I'm cool with that but I'm not the one you should be concerned about. You are free to work these things out for yourself. If you can do it rationally, you'll be the first. Go ahead, convince me that in a Godless, purposeless, pointless, amoral universe of quarks, leptons, and forces, that human life has meaning and significance. Yeah, right. In a 14 billion year old (give or take) universe of which you will occupy for 70 years, plus or minus, you matter?? I matter?? Ha. The fact of it is, IF there is no God then there is no point and there is no value, nothing of intrinsic worth. NOTHING. There is no morality. There is no meaning to anything. In the blink of a cosmic eye we appear and disappear (in your alleged universe) and that's it. No accounting, no judgment, no owning up, nothing but oblivion. I eagerly await your explanation of meaning given your (apparent) naturalism. "I am quite prepared to believe in the existence of such a being if you can provide evidence for it or if He/She/It is prepared to step forward and do the same." What would you consider evidence? That's a serious question. I thought I had a clue but bornagain77 has swamped everyone with evidence, with able assistance from others, and you and Nak and others just will not get it. There is nothing that can convince you. The tragic thing is, deep down inside you know that God exists and if He does, then miracles are possible. Miracles that could confirm truth claims made by His agents. In other words, if there is a God then there can also be a Word of God. If you will read it and ARGUE with my argument I will prove to you that God exists with an exercise in pure reason that will make a prediction that has been empirically confirmed in the last few decades of science. If you are just going to ignore or dodge the argument, then I won't bother. It's been done before by better men and minds than me. "Simply pointing to the many gaps in current scientific knowledge and exclaiming: “See! Your much-vaunted science can’t explain how that came to be. It must have been designed/created” is not evidence." If it wouldn't be completely inappropriate, it is right about now that I would say, no "expletive deleted" kidding (it's an old technical Marine term). Arguments from ignorance. How pathetic. Odd though that the only such arguments I've seen out here that qualify by that standard are the ones "you people" make. I don't argue from ignorance and neither does anyone on the ID side in this thread. Your biases are showing. And by the way, it's my science too. I love science and what it has done for me and mine. And others too, if that helps make me look compassionate... "Yes, in the last century millions were killed by regimes that were avowedly atheistic. Over the many centuries before that uncounted millions were killed in the name of religion. The only reasons why less people were killed in any preceding century is that there were fewer people around to kill and less efficient means of doing their killing. On the other hand, there are millions of people alive today who would otherwise be dead because of discoveries by secular or atheistic science. And by that I mean that the explaining how diabetes or malaria or poliomyelitis works or the treatment thereof did not require the assumption of the existence of a deity." Are you sh... kidding me??? The only reason atheists didn't kill more in the past was because they didn't have nukes, CBUs, and automatic weapons??? That's good. No really, it is genuinely funny. I'm LMAO as I type. And your point would be... what?? As to the "secular or atheistic" science, you demonstrate an abysmal ignorance of history. Science is only possible in a universe of rationality and order and your metaphysic has no warrant for postulating either of those things. Many, if not most, of the early scientists were Christians. They saw the evidence of God in His creation and they were doing science almost as a form of worship. Why would you care about millions saved in a pointless universe? Who gives a s... darn. See, this just demonstrates the futility of reasoning with someone who rejects reason. Your worldview doesn't allow for good and evil but yet you make reference to those things. That's called a self-contradiction where I come from. You can't have it both ways. That's a rule of logic called the law of non-contradiction. There is either evil or there isn't. No in betweens, either. That's called the law of the excluded middle. And yes, "Christians" have done very, very bad things and continue to do so. But that's not really the point. You see, if we had read the Bible and obeyed it, then we wouldn't have been creating mischief along with our atheist brethren. That's the key point. You don't judge a body of doctrine by the abuses of a few. Not if you are rational, that is. I'll go the extra mile here. Tell me what your basic philosophical assumptions are (I'll give you mine in a minute) and we can figure out what is the correct way to view things. My assumptions are as follows: 1. Reason is the ultimate authority in matters of truth. (To argue against that statement is to use reason to deny the efficacy of reason and therefore irrational.) 2. There is a way that the universe is. There is a way that "things are." (This is also undeniable. If I say "God" and you say "no God" then we are both saying that there is a way that things are and one of us is right and the other is wrong.) 3. Propositional statements (truth claims) that correspond to the way that things are, are true. Those that do not, are false. This is the definition of truth. You may recognize it as the correspondence theory of truth but it is the definition of truth. The other two major theories of truth, coherence and pragmatism, both allege that they represent reality. i.e. that they correspond to the way that things are.) 4. Since certain abstract things are indisputably real, such as the laws of physics, economics, and logic, mathematics, and information, then I am justified to think, a priori, that it is possible for other abstract things to exist - that is, minds and God. 5. But this is not an argument so now we must weigh the available evidence to determine who has a better answer for the universe and all it contains, the theist or the atheist. 6. When a valid deductive argument (the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) is sound, that is, the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. Not even God could make it not true. 7. All arguments must begin with first principles or physical laws otherwise "invisible" assumptions get to "sneak in" unannounced and contaminate the argument. 8. Believing B.S. never got me anywhere. I make an inductive argument from my personal experience to the personal experience of others and I conclude that believing B.S. probably never did others any good either. 9. I am selfish and want what's best for me. That's why I am interested in what's true. 10. I am also a coward and IF there is (determined by rigorous reasoning and unflinching examination of the evidence) an Almighty God, Creator of the universe, then I don't want to be on His bad side come the time when I have to account for myself. This is not an argument for His existence, it is merely my instinct for self-preservation taking the possibility seriously. 11. There are two ways, three ways an argument can be defeated. It can be invalid. That is the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. In that case, all one has to do is point that out. The second way is that one or more of the premises can be false. This also makes the conclusion false. The third way, my favorite, because my work is already done, (did I mention lazy, too?) is when an argument destroys itself because it contains an internal contradiction of some kind. I have pointed that out re. naturalism/materialism on this thread but for some reason it's gotten essentially zero traction. It's either blindingly obvious (my take) or it sucks (I hope not). In any case I will be "happy" to remake it in detail if need be. I look forward to hearing back from you with some of your "first principles" and a shot at mine. If you'll really play, that is.tgpeeler_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Mr. Nakashima I take it your reference to "megahilberts" was a humorous one, as the term does not show up in Google - except on this thread! However, here are two articles that might impress you: Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism by Alex Williams. Astonishing DNA complexity update by Alex Williams. Don't diss DNA.vjtorley_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Hi vj, Sorry, but I don't recall saying anything about religion being a curse or a benefit. I was simply commenting on the inanity of the "body count' argument.Dave Wisker_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Seversky and Dave Wisker Before assessing whether religion has been a net blessing or curse for humanity, you also need to consider the number of lives saved by religion. In this connection, here is an article which you really should read, detailing how Christianity improved the status of women and saved millions of people in ancient Rome from death by female infanticide and from the plagues which periodically swept the Roman Empire: Reconstructing the rise of Christianity: the role of women by sociologist Rodney Stark. In Sociology of Religion, Fall 1995. In 1996, Stark followed up with a book, The Rise of Christianity (1996, Princeton University Press), available at Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/0060677015 . Some of it can be viewed online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=HcFSaGvgKKkC&dq=The+Rise+of+Christianity+Stark&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1wnlSuWpONP-kAWl7ojDAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false . Stark is a very fair-minded researcher, and his writing is very lucid and refreshingly free of bombast and polemic. One thing that emerges clearly from his book, however, is that Christianity significantly improved the social status and rights of women in ancient Rome. This is especially evident when we consider female infanticide, which was prevalent in practically every ancient society. Although most world religions condemn infanticide in forthright terms (see the BBC report, What Different Religions Say About Infanticide ), only three actually managed to ban it: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Here ar some useful links: Pagans, Christianity and Infanticide by Christopher Price. (Incidentally, it was Bishop Basil of Caesarea who finally convinced Emperor Valentinian (364-375 CE) - a Christian - to outlaw the practice of infanticide in the Roman Empire.) Women's Right in Islam - Modernising or outdated? : Social Rights of Women in Islam by Dr. Zakir Naik. This article narrates how Islam eradicated female infanticide in Arabia. Case study: Female Infanticide (Focus on in India and China). This article documents how femae infanticide continues to run rampant in these societies. And the consequences are truly catastrophic: 90 Million Missing Females, and a $45 Trillion Gap , according to this article from Zenit International News Agency (24 July 2004). How many lives has religion saved by its prohibition of infanticide? Here's my calculation. Population of the Roman empire: about 60 million people. Annual number of births (assuming say, 40 births per 1000 people per year): about 2.4 million, or 1.2 million boys and 1.2 million girls, of whom 200,000 were killed through exposure under the Romans. Enter Christianity: up to 200,000 girls' lives saved per year, or 20 million per century, or 200 million over a period of a millennium. Do the same math in Arab countries as well, and you get even more girls' lives saved. Still think religion is anti-social?vjtorley_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Seversky and Dave Wisker: I agree with you that the practice (engaged in by some defenders of Christianity) of comparing the tens of millions killed under Stalin with the smaller number of people killed in Christian atrocities is an unfair one, as it fails to take account of world population during the time when Christianity was dominant. If you want to bone up on atrocities, then I cannot do better than to recommend a guy named Matthew White, who has done a lot of research on the subject. White is not a Christian - indeed, he does not belong to any religion, as far as I can tell. Neither is he an academic. However, he is an incisive thinker, and he does get right to the heart of the matter, when addressing issues relating to atrocities - numbers, methods of counting, who's responsible, what the causes are, and what it all means. Here are some links that will help you a lot. Which Has Killed More People? Christianity or Gun Control? by Matthew White. Essential reading for those who wish to get a balanced perspective on the harm wrought by religion. Matthew White's Web site on atrocities is extraordinarily thorough, comprehensive and fair-minded. Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century by Matthew White. Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century (Page Two) by Matthew White. (Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other by Matthew White. Blame and Responsibility - FAQs by Matthew White. An excerpt:
Q: Is religion responsible for more more violent deaths than any other cause? A: No, of course not - unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century - Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union - no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion. Q: So, what you're saying is that religion has never killed anyone. A: Arrgh... You all-or-nothing people drive me crazy. There are many documented examples where members of one religion try to exterminate the members of another religion. Causation is always complex, but if the only difference between two warring groups is religion, then that certainly sounds like a religious conflict to me. Is it the number one cause of mass homicide in human history? No. Of the 22 worst episodes of mass killing, maybe four were primarily religious. Is that a lot? Well, it's more than the number of wars fought over soccer, or sex (The Trojan and Sabine Wars don't even make the list.), but less than the number fought over land, money, glory or prestige. In my Index, I list 41 religious conflicts compared with 27 oppressions under "Communism", 24 under Colonialism, 2 under "Railroads" and 2 under "Scapegoats". Make of that what you will.
vjtorley_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Nak, Here is more stuff for you to pretend that doesn't matter: The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick! (Trifonov, 1989) No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). There are about three-billion letters of code on the six feet of DNA curled up in each human cell. If you were to read the code aloud, at a rate of three letters per second for twenty-four hours per day (about one-hundred-million letters a year), it would take you over thirty years to read it. The capacity of a DNA molecule to store information is so efficient all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram. The information needed to specify the design of all species of organisms which have ever existed (a number estimated to be one billion) could easily fit into a teaspoon with plenty of room left over for every book ever written on the face of the earth. For comparison sake, if mere man were to write out the proper locations of all the protein molecules in just one human body, in the limited mathematical language he now uses, it would take a bundle of CD-ROM disks greater than the size of the moon, or a billion-trillion computer hard drives, and that’s just the proper locations for the protein molecules in one human body, that billion-trillion computer hard-drives would not contain a single word of instruction telling those protein molecules how to self assemble themselves. (The Bit and the Pendulum - Tom Siegfried - Samuel Braunstein) "To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!" - Michael Denton Psalm 139: 14-15 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body."bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Please continue. Quote the paper that says the genetic code measures 6.7 megahilberts (the standard measure of technical brilliance) and the code of the global weather forecasting system only measures 4.5 megahilberts. I haven't been able to find it with Google ScholarNakashima_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Another fact for you to ignore Nak: Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. - 2009 Excerpt: We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments. At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Here are some more facts for you to ignore: John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome: "There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). (Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005)bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Nak , that is too funny ,,,you want facts and when presented with facts you NEVER listen,,,The truth is you just want pseudo-facts to tickle your materialistic ears with: Well anyway here is some more facts for you to ignore and dance around with superfluous tongue wagging. Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUeCgTN7pOo Entire video: http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - David L Abel and Jack T Trevors: Excerpt: Genetic algorithms instruct sophisticated biological organization. Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC). FSC alone provides algorithmic instruction...No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization...It is only in researching the pre-RNA world that the problem of single-stranded metabolically functional sequencing of ribonucleotides (or their analogs) becomes acute. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 H.P. Yockey also notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical: "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," J. Theoret. Biol.bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, The Coding Found In DNA Surpasses Mans Ability to Code – Stephen Meyer Thank you for more opinions, not facts. This is an often expressed claim, but you are not backing it up with a measurement.Nakashima_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Nak, Are YOU denying information exists in life? No, for most definitions of life and information. If the definition of information is non-standard, perhaps.Nakashima_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#187) It has been a pleasure exchanging views with you, as always. I would just like to comment on a couple of points you raised before I sign off. You wrote:
In particular he [Kalinsky - VJT] is comparing the capability of a designed process with his (faulty) estimate of the likelihood of a natural process. He makes no “best possible” assumptions about a purely natural process.
No “best possible” assumptions? What about this?
Taylor et al. have estimated that the mass of the earth would equal about 10^47 proteins, of 100 amino acids each.[7] If we suppose that the entire set of 10^47 proteins reorganized once per year over a 500 million year interval (about the estimated time period for pre-biotic evolution), then that search permits about 10^55 options to be tried. Using Eqn. (3), I(nat) = (approx.) 185 bits of functional information.
500 million years, and an entire planet composed of amino acids and nothing else. If that's not a "best possible" assumption for the evolution of proteins, then I don't know what is. You also write:
If a process exists which is likely to produce a result X which would otherwise be improbable then that’s just a fact of nature... Any natural process that increases the probability of producing a functional protein is introducing a “bias” towards those results. But that is perfectly legitimate. That is exactly what having a natural explanation is. Clouds introduce a bias towards rain.
Clouds do introduce a bias towards rain, but they do so on the basis of known, low-level physico-chemical laws. As far as we know, there are no laws favoring the emeregence of amino acids, but if there were, they would have to be pretty odd laws: long, detailed and rather specific - cerainly not the concise, back-of-the-T-shirt variety that we all dreamed of back in the eighties when the "theory of everything" was all the rage. If there are certain biases in nature favoring the emergence of proteins, and these biases are not predictable from what we know of physics and chemistry, then I certainly think that's a very odd fact, and I for one would want to explain it.vjtorley_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

---Mark Frank: "Happy to have a go at this –[explaining how physics alone can produce information] but first which of the many definitions of information are you using? TRANSLATION 1. I will answer the question provided someone provides a specific definition of information. Definition offered [by yours truly]: "The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects?" ----Mark Frank: “I am sorry StephenB – you are also on my “do not respond” list." [Along with Bornagain 77] TRANSLATION 2. I only respond to those who don't hold my feet to the fire. ---Mark Frank to a (nice person?) [unlike me]: "A pleasure doing business with you. I think you will find that all definitions of information are unsatisfactory in some respects. That’s because it has many meanings and any good definition will inevitably exclude some of those meanings." TRANSLATION 3: I will not answer the question even if a nice person provides a definition since all definitions are inferior.StephenB_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

And Of Course Dave, for a fairly strong and cohesive Theodicy you can check out Dr. Dembski's new book, if you're interested: The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World http://www.amazon.com/End-Christianity-Finding-Good-World/dp/0805427430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254433434&sr=1-1 I believe you can check an excerpt of the book here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdfbornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Dave, A little more clarity: Theodicy Without God? What Ive never understood about theodicy is this: why do atheists ponder the Problem of Evil? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/theodicy_without_god.html Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. you cannot disprove God by pointing to evil. All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the Christian belief that we are in a fallen world. William Lane Craig - Moral Argument For The Existence Of God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ1oaBD8xVobornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Dave, I ask if you believe in evil because I just want to know from which basis you, as a materialist/atheist, are prepared to make a "moral" argument in the first place. Does God Exist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1JbHRgNowU Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution Part 1 of 3 - Thomas Kindell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI1RiTOQ4dobornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Seversky, only in your fertile imagination is finding virtually 100% poly-functional DNA of no concern to materialists. Furthermore your post hoc excuses for evolutionists never really predicting Junk DNA falls on deaf ears considering I have over the years debated several evolutionists about Junk DNA with them consistently maintaining it was Junk,,,even after the ENCODE findings! Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome: The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John S. Mattick Scientific American (November, 2003) http://www.evolutionnews.org/bornagain77_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

#169 Cable A pleasure doing business with you. I think you will find that all definitions of information are unsatisfactory in some respects. That's because it has many meanings and any good definition will inevitably exclude some of those meanings.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

#168 vjtorley I think you are reading a lot more into Kalinsky's article then is there. However, whether Kalinsky implied it or not there seems to be a logical flaw in what you have written. You go to some pains to explain something can be biased without being directed. Then later on you write that if nature is biased towards life (i.e. there is a natural process which makes life probable) then: That’s a Teilhardian solution to the problem of origins. It begs the question: why is nature so nice? Only a theist could answer such a question. Surely that would only be true if the solution were directed. Any natural process that increases the probability of producing a functional protein is introducing a "bias" towards those results. But that is perfectly legitimate. That is exactly what having a natural explanation is. Clouds introduce a bias towards rain. Kalinsky questions the probability of such a natural process arising and that is what I dealt with in #146. It may be easier if you remember the order of events. The functional proteins are the result of a process that existed before they did, not a target for which the process was created. If a process exists which is likely to produce a result X which would otherwise be improbable then that's just a fact of nature. You also write: In his/her article, then, Kalinsky is comparing the capabilities of two processes to generate functional information: intelligence (never mind whose), and a random walk. (We’ve already ruled out a non-random walk as “cheating.”) You may have ruled out a non-random walk as cheating. I haven't. "Random walk" is specific probability model that I cannot see how to apply in this situation - but I think my paragraph above covers this. You may be right that Kalinsky is only talking about the capabilities of two processes to produce life. By capability I guess you mean the chances of a process producing life given the absolute best assumptions. So in the case of a mind we assume it is omnipotent and motivated. I actually think he confusing capability (in this sense) with likelihood and slipping between the two. In particular he is comparing the capability of a designed process with his (faulty) estimate of the likelihood of a natural process. He makes no "best possible" assumptions about a purely natural process. Anyhow I think we have exhausted this. I hope I have at least addressed your concern that no one has faulted Kalinsky's logic. At a minimum our very discussion shows that his logic is not clear.Mark Frank_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

BA writes: So Dave, Do YOU deny the existence of evil? What makes you ask that, BA?Dave Wisker_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 172
Amazingly, materialists use to insist that most of the 98.5% of the genome, which did not directly code for proteins, was useless “Junk DNA”. Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA.
"Materialists" did not insist on anything as a group. Evolutionary biologists found that there were large parts of the human genome that had no apparent function at the time. Putting it simply, in 1972, Dr Susumu Ohno argued that the accumulation of a large amount of "junk DNA" was a necessary consequence of the way genes mutate. This was not immediately accepted as dogma. In fact, the very first question after his presentation described it as "suspect". Yes, some regions of so-called "junk DNA" have been found to have a function. This was suspected from the beginning. That speculation and the research were done by evolutionary biologists. It did not come from creationists or ID proponents sitting on the sidelines taking potshots at the arguments. It was also evolutionary biologists who cut out sections of DNA from the genomes of experimental animals and found it had no apparent effect on subsequent generations. In other words, these sections of DNA actually did not appear to do anything, certainly nothing useful. Maybe they did in the past. Maybe they will be co-opted into doing something useful in the future. No one knows. But the evidence is they do not do anything at this time. What else would you expect? Mutations happen. Functional genes - like our vitamin C gene - can occasionally get knocked. As long as it does not impose some intolerable burden on the organism, the broken gene will just continue along for the ride. Over sufficient time, it could mutate out of all recognition from its previous function or it might even be re-activated by another mutation. The key point is that this will be the case whether it was designed or evolved through natural causes. If a designer was involved then either he chose to use DNA in full knowledge of its vulnerability to mutation or it was used because there was no other choice. Either way, "junk DNA" is no challenge to evolutionary theory and no comfort to believers and/or New Paleyists. Seversky_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

BA77: "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) – Page up for Pseudo-genes refutation http://www.detectingdesign.com.....Endogenous Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVS) A Case for Common Descent or A Case for Incorrect Presupposition? http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ruses.html" Interesting and very much to the point. It's late where I live and I want to read them again before responding. I am going to want to spend sometime considering the argument that some or all ERVs could have inserted themselves in similar places in the genomes of various species by infecting those species seperately. That argument, of course, takes something away from common descent but gives nothing to ID. Thanks for the references.ellazimm_{October 25, 2009
October
10
Oct
25
25
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply